No Rite of Passage: Coming to Grips with Harassment and Bullying ...

A supplement to School Board News
National School
Boards Association
August 2006
www.nsba.org/na
When the Colorado state legislature
was considering a
proposal this year to repeal
the state’s time limit for
bringing sex abuse lawsuits, critics saw the
proposal as opportunistic targeting of the
Catholic church in the wake of headlines
about sexual abuse by priests. On the
advice of outside lobbyists, church leaders
decided the best defense was a good
offense. So they attacked public schools.
Focusing on the fact that Colorado
provides public entities a degree of immunity
from some state tort claims, an open
letter from Colorado bishops denounced
the legal “double standard” for sexual
abuse claims arising in public and private
schools. The letter asserted, “Nationally,
the evidence is now irrefutable that sexual
abuse and misconduct against minors in
public schools is a serious problem, in fact,
more serious than anywhere outside the
home, including churches.”
As a legal matter, the argument had its
weaknesses, but this was a political matter,
and the tactic probably helped persuade
lawmakers to back off.
Among those weighing in on the Colorado
debate was Professor Charol Shakeshaft
of Hofstra University, whose 2004
report for the U.S. Department of Education
suggested that roughly one in 10 pub-
A Membership Benefit of NSBA National Affiliates
No Rite of Passage: Coming to Grips with Harassment and Bullying
By Thomas Hutton
IN THIS ISSUE
2Strong school board policies
can help prevent bullying
Insider
LEADERSHIP
PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCHOOL LAW &POLICY
lic school children is a victim of sexual
misconduct in school. Even the department
distanced itself a bit from this conclusion,
but the headlines the report generated
were predictable.
Meanwhile, an enormous school climate
survey released this spring by the
Urban Student Achievement Task Force
of the NSBA Council of Urban Boards of
Education (CUBE) shed new light on bullying
in schools. With responses from
nearly 32,000 high school students in 15
urban school districts, the survey found
that more than 75 percent of students said
they are not bullied during the school day.
But 50 percent said they see other students
being bullied at least once a month.
More distressing, nearly half of the students
expressed doubt that teachers really
can stop the behavior.
The law is clear about a school district’s
obligation to prevent harassment
and take action when it occurs. And now
parents and advocacy groups are delivering
a loud message to school officials and
other policymakers that children should
not have to endure ugly bullying at school
as an inevitable rite of passage. They point
out that students who are picked on are
more likely to have trouble staying
focused on learning.
School boards and school boards associations
have gotten the message and
have been busily tweaking codes of stu-
5When can schools discipline
students for cyber-bullying?
National School Boards Association 1680 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
dent conduct, adopting or revising board
policies, and approving new initiatives.
Bullying has become a hot topic for the
politicians, too, and many states have at
least considered new legislation or other
state action.
This edition of Leadership Insider compiles
viewpoints and resources about how
school districts can address these problems.
More resources are listed on page 12, and
links are collected on the NSBA National
Affiliate website, www.nsba.org/na.
School attorney Kim Croyle leads off
with an overview of legal considerations
related to harassment and bullying, as well
as preventive tips. She outlines five key
steps for school boards to ensure that their
districts are acting prudently.
On page 5, school attorney Lisa Swem
addresses a relatively new wrinkle for
school leaders: cyber-bullying. She discusses
the extent to which the First Amendment
protects cyber-bullies and whether
school officials can discipline them.
Not everyone embraces the entirety of
the antibullying push. Wellesley College
Senior Research Scientist Nan Stein offers
a somewhat more skeptical view on page
4, at least as to certain aspects of the
antibullying movement and what she sees
as their risks. In particular, she warns
against overreliance on a purely zero-tol-
9How a divided community
reached common ground
See Bullying on page 12

2
Insider
LEADERSHIP
PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCHOOL LAW & POLICY
Leadership Insider, is published six times
annually by NSBA’s National Education Policy
Network and its Council of School Attorneys in
cooperation with the National Affilate Program.
Opinions expressed in and by Insider do not
necessarily reflect positions of the National
School Boards Association.
Copyright 2006,
National School Boards Association.
President E. Jane Gallucci
Executive Director Anne L. Bryant
Co-Editors
Staff Attorney
Thomas Hutton
Manager, Federal and Policy Guidance
Karla Schultz
Director of Publications
Glenn Cook
Managing Editor, National Affiliate Publications
Ellie Ashford
Director, National Affiliate Program
Gene Broderson
Production Manager
Carrie E. Carroll
Production Assistant
Donna J. Ernst
Leadership Insider is printed and assembled
by the NSBA Office Services Printshop
About NSBA
The National School Boards Association is the
nationwide advocacy organization for public
school governance. NSBA’s mission is to foster
excellence and equity in public elementary
and secondary education in the United States
through local school board leadership. Founded
in 1940, NSBA is a not-for-profit federation
of state associations of school boards and the
school boards of the District of Columbia,
Hawai‘i, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
About the National Affiliate Program
The National Affiliate Program extends NSBA’s
services directly to local school districts.
School districts are eligible to join provided
they are members in good standing of their
state school boards associations.
About the Council of School Attorneys
The Council of School Attorneys provides information
and practical assistance to attorneys
who represent public school districts. It offers
legal education, specialized publications, and
a forum for exchange of information, and it
supports the legal advocacy efforts of the
National School Boards Association.
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
Maintaining Respectful Schools
What your school board needs to know about
preventing and responding to harassment and bullying
By Kim Croyle
It’s a dewy summer morning. You take
your newspaper and coffee outside to
enjoy and are confronted with a frontpage
headline like one of these—real
ones:
• Bullying by Students Faces Greater
Scrutiny; Lawsuit against District Illustrates
New Look at Old Behavior
• U.S. Teen Harassed By Schoolmates
Who Thought He Was Gay Wins
$440,000 Settlement
• Lawsuit: Bullying Wrecked Girl’s Life
• Lawsuit Claims School Was Indifferent
to Bullying of Student with Disability
Nothing can prepare you for the dismay
you feel when your school system is
the subject of one of these stories—let
alone one of these lawsuits. But you can
be prepared to ward off such claims before
they’re made. Here is some practical
advice for understanding harassment and
bullying, preventing such behavior before
it starts, and responding to complaints
once they have been made—plus the consequences
of failing to respond.
What constitutes harassment?
Simple question—right? Not really. As
awareness of harassment and bullying has
increased, the definition of what is, and
what is not, harassment continues to
spark debate.
Harassment based on a person’s race,
gender, ethnic background, religion,
national origin, age, or disability is a form
of discrimination prohibited by state and
federal laws. Discrimination against these
“protected classes” is prohibited in places
of employment and public accommodations,
such as public schools. The statutes
provide for administrative relief, as well as
avenues to pursue monetary damages
through a civil lawsuit. They set a stiff
standard for not only eliminating harassment
once it’s started but preventing it
from starting in the first place.
In addition, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and the
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for
Civil Rights investigate allegations of
harassment and discrimination and promulgate
guidelines for investigating and preventing
sexual and other types of harass-
ment. Significantly, the EEOC cautions
that:
“Prevention is the best tool to eliminate
sexual harassment in the workplace.
Employers are encouraged to
take steps necessary to prevent sexual
harassment from occurring. They
should clearly communicate to
employees that sexual harassment will
not be tolerated. They can do so by
providing sexual harassment training
to their employees and by establishing
an effective complaint or grievance
process and taking immediate and
appropriate action when an employee
complains.”
Not only are school systems subject to
the Title VII prohibitions against sexual
harassment, but Title IX prohibits discrimination
on the basis of sex under any education
program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.
As part of Title IX’s mandate, school
systems must provide students with a
nondiscriminatory educational environment.
This applies to the elimination of
harassment, regardless of gender, as well as
equality between the genders
The U.S. Supreme Court also has
determined that, in some instances, Title
IX may be used as a mechanism for a private
lawsuit. In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent
School District (1998), the
Supreme Court found that a district would
be liable for an employee’s harassment of a
student when district officials knew of the
harassment and failed to take any corrective
action.
When is a district liable?
The Court refused to hold districts
strictly liable for teacher-on-student sexual
harassment under Title IX unless the
school district was “deliberately indifferent”
to the misconduct. But the standard
it set forth in Gebser nevertheless opened
the floodgates for claims that school officials
actually had knowledge of a harassment
incident.
Under Gebser, a school district will be
held liable if:

1. An appropriate school official has
actual knowledge of discrimination,
including harassment;
2. The school official has authority to
take corrective action to address the discrimination;
3. The school official fails to respond
adequately; and
4. The inadequate response amounts to
deliberate indifference.
A year later, the Supreme Court handed
down the decision of Davis v. Monroe
County Board of Education, which found
that a person also can bring a private
lawsuit against a school system under
Title IX for student-on-student sexual
harassment.
In this case, the Court found that a district
could be liable for sexual harassment
among students if:
1. The school system knew of sexual
harassment and was deliberately indifferent
to it; and
2. The harassment was so severe, pervasive,
and objectionably offensive that it
deprived the victim of educational opportunities
or benefits provided by the school
system.
This pronouncement has significant
implications for school districts. If the district
lacks antiharassment policies, or if
they are out of date, a plaintiff surely will
claim that the district has been “deliberately
indifferent” to harassment. The same
alarm may be raised if a district does not
follow its own policies in terms of investigation,
education, or training.
The Court did recognize in Davis, however,
that schoolchildren often act inappropriately
and that “simple acts of name calling...,
even where these comments target differences
in gender,” will not necessarily give
rise to damages. Instead, the conduct must
be “serious enough to have the systemic
effect of denying the victim equal access to
an educational program or activity.”
In the wake of these Supreme Court
decisions, federal and state courts have
applied the “deliberate indifference” standard
to allegations that extend beyond
gender discrimination to other types of
harassment and bullying. For example, in
the 2003 case of Bryant v. ISD No. I-38,
the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
applied the standard for sexual harassment
under Title IX to claims of a hostile environment
based on race.
In 2004, the 3rd Circuit Appeals
Court, in Stowe Regional High School Board
of Education v. P.S., held that a school system’s
failure to prevent bullying and
harassment based on disability resulted in
a failure to provide a free appropriate public
education as required by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.
How can you prevent
harassment?
The responsibilities of school leaders—
board members and administrators alike—
can be broken down into five key steps:
1. Know the law. Many state statutes
and state departments of education
require school boards to have policies that
prohibit harassment and bullying.
2. Develop a policy that addresses the
law. All school districts should have policies
that address harassment and discrimination.
In states where such a policy is
mandated by law, a district that lacks one
will automatically be tagged with deliberate
indifference. The policy must not only
define specifically what constitutes harassment
and bullying, but must also set forth
a mechanism for reporting such behavior.
3. Involve the community. Parents,
students, school employees, and community
leaders alike should be involved in
developing the policy. When everyone
who has a stake in preventing harassment
and bullying helps solve the problem,
your policies have a much greater chance
of success. And when those with different
views come to the table, you gain
allies in the fight against harassment and
bullying.
4. Make sure students and staff
understand the policy. Too often, good
board policies lie dormant because people
simply don’t know they exist. Provide for
yearly training for students and staff members
so they will recognize harassment and
know what to do when they see it.
5. Hold school administrators accountable.
As the court in Bryant explained:
“School administrators are not simply
bystanders in the school. They are
leaders of the educational environment.
They set the standard for
behavior. They mete out discipline
and consequences. They provide the
system and rules by which students are
expected to follow. ... [W]hen school
administrators who have a duty to
provide a nondiscriminatory educational
environment for their charges
are made aware of egregious forms of
intentional discrimination and make
the intentional choice to sit by and do
nothing, they can be held liable.”
School administrators who turn away
in the face of harassment have the poten-
tial to incur liability—not only for themselves
but for the school board as well.
How should complaints
be addressed?
Unfortunately, even the best prevention
efforts won’t guarantee that all
harassment and bullying will be eliminated.
Make sure people in your school community
know how to file a complaint, and
post contact information for your district’s
human rights or Title IX officer conspicuously
in each school building and anywhere
else school employees work.
Every complaint must be investigated—never
allow one to be ignored simply
because it does not “seem” credible. Consider
the following guidelines for addressing
complaints:
• Appoint one person at each school
or facility to receive oral or written reports
of discrimination, harassment, or violence
in the building. (This person might be the
principal. For school facilities that do not
have a principal, such as the transportation
and maintenance departments, the
director should be responsible for receiving
the reports.)
• Require school employees to report
all alleged incidents of harassment or violence
that they observe within 24 hours.
• Ensure that the district’s human
rights or Title IX officer is promptly notified
of each such report, and then begin
an investigation of the complaint.
• Require that, at a minimum, the investigation
consist of personal interviews with
the person who complained, the person
against whom the complaint is filed, and
others who might have knowledge of the
alleged incident or circumstance that
prompted the complaint. The investigation
could also include other methods and documents
deemed pertinent by the investigator.
• Provide that a written report is forwarded
to the district’s human rights or
Title IX officer and the superintendent
when the investigation is complete, and in
most cases not later than 10 working days
of receiving the complaint.
• Stress confidentiality about the filing
of the complaint, the identity of subjects
and witnesses, and any action taken as a
result. Strict confidentiality is essential to
an effective investigation. Moreover, it will
encourage people to come forward and
report incidents of discrimination. Only
those individuals necessary for the investigation
and resolution of the complaint
should be given information about it. The
right to confidentiality of complainants,
subjects, witnesses, and investigators should
August 2006 / LEADERSHIP INSIDER 3

e vigorously protected; any violation may
be grounds for disciplinary action.
What if an allegation is proved?
The school district must discipline any
individual who has engaged in prohibited
conduct. Note, too, that the district also
must discipline anyone who takes any
adverse action against someone who
reports possible discrimination, harassment,
or violence—or against someone
who cooperates, testifies, assists, or participates
in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing on the matter.
“Adverse action” includes, but is not
limited to, any form of retaliation or
4
Words Matter
In this post-Columbine world of zerotolerance
school discipline, one strike
has often meant you’re out, no matter
what. Sometimes students have been
suspended not for what they have done,
but for papers they have written, thoughts
they have had, and drawings they have
created.
More recently, bullying behavior has
begun to be grouped under the everbroadening
umbrella of zero tolerance.
School districts state that they will not
tolerate bullies. They display bully-buster
posters on school walls to accompany the
new antibullying rules. Eradicating bullies
is also all the rage with state legislators
and consultants.
Still, there is no agreement on how to
define bullying or what kinds of behavior
it includes; the parameters of bullying are
very elastic. Almost anything has the
potential to be called bullying, from raising
one’s eyebrow, giving “the evil eye,” and
making faces, to verbal expressions of
preference for some people over others.
An ambiguous path
To attach the vague term “bullying” to
this behavior is to opt out of the civil
rights framework and start down an
ambiguous path. Problems pop up all
along this path.
Sometimes very egregious behavior is
labeled “bullying,” when in fact it might
constitute criminal hazing or sexual/gender
harassment. To call this kind of behav-
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
intimidation, reprisal, coercion, provocation,
or harassment.
Keep in mind that having a procedure
for students and employees to follow does
not deny an individual’s right to pursue
other avenues of recourse. These may
include filing charges against the perpetrator
or the school board or initiating civil or
criminal action under state or federal law.
And remember that under certain circumstances,
harassment and bullying may
constitute child abuse, requiring you to
report the incident to your state’s child
protective services.
When school districts fail to adopt,
understand, and follow their policies, they
ior “bullying” leaves no opportunity to
identify, conceptualize, or investigate the
behavior as a violation of rights under specific
legal criteria.
When children are very young, it is
appropriate to talk about bullying, rather
than sexual harassment or sexual violence.
But certainly by the time children are in
sixth grade, we ought to stop speaking in
euphemisms or generalities.
Let’s name the behavior for what it is.
To continue using the term “bullying”
with older children does them a serious
disservice. We infantilize adolescents when
we keep calling their inappropriate behavior
toward others “bullying”—especially if
that behavior might constitute criminal
conduct.
Words matter. By sixth grade, children
need to be able to understand conduct for
what it is, be it harassment, hazing, or sexual
violence.
The wrong direction
School boards and administrators
should consider whether they have been
too quick to embrace the anti-bullying
movement and, in so doing, to abandon
the anti-harassment focus.
By calling behavior “bullying” rather
than “harassment,” some districts might
believe they are less likely to be sued in
federal court. After all, harassment and
discrimination based on race, disability,
gender, or national origin are civil rights
violations, and rigorous standards of
are vulnerable to the “deliberatly indifferent”
label. As the headlines quoted earlier
suggest, the damage done to a school system
is measured not just in monetary
terms, but in wasted time and energy and,
ultimately, loss of confidence in the schools.
Most important, the children in your
schools deserve the opportunity to learn in
an environment free from intimidation
and harassment. By being vigilant in
enacting and enforcing your policies, you
can help make sure that happens.
Kim Croyle of Bowles Rice McDavid Graff &
Love LLP in Morgantown, W.Va., is a member of
the NSBA Council of School Attorneys.
Sweeping serious harassment under the ‘bullying’ rug does students a disservice
By Nan D. Stein
proof must be met when such charges are
made.
Bullying, on the other hand, violates no
federal law, and it is not tied to civil
rights. By subsuming serious violations
under the bullying umbrella, then, it is
possible that students who have been bullied
might lose their rights to legal redress.
Approaching the subject of bullying
without also talking about harassment and
hazing leads us in the wrong direction.
The focus should be on ensuring civil
rights and equal educational opportunities
for all students—rather than on suspending
and expelling more students in the
name of zero tolerance for bullying. We
don’t want to find ourselves suspending
students left and right for all sorts of “discomfort”
that they might have caused.
Bullying is too arbitrary, subjective, and
all-encompassing a concept to be the basis
for a sound disciplinary approach. Because
there is no threshold for bullying, its use as
a criterion is rife with opportunities for
abuse of power.
The broad sweep of both the anti-bullying
movement and zero tolerance is very
troubling. Once we back away from rights,
it could be difficult to reclaim them.
Instead, let’s stick with rights. Let’s use
them, extend them, and reaffirm them.
Nan D. Stein is senior research scientist at the
Center for Research on Women at the Wellesley
Centers for Women at Wellesley College,
Wellesley, Mass.

Sticks and Stones in Cyberspace
By Lisa L. Swem
“Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words will never hurt me.”
Bullying occurs throughout the K-12
school environment and comes in
many forms. With the proliferation
of interactive and digital technologies,
cyberspace has become a new venue
through which bullies can torment their
victims. Unfortunately for the victim,
technology can afford the bully a greater
degree of anonymity and a wider audience.
Although the cyber-bully typically acts
far away from the schoolhouse gate,
school officials regularly deal with the
aftermath of the behavior. But school discipline
for off-campus conduct is vulnerable
to legal challenge. Litigation challenging
such discipline for cyberspace
activity generally favors the student when
First Amendment protections are implicated
and school officials fail to link the
conduct to disruption of the learning
environment.
First Amendment protection
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in Reno v. ACLU that speech on the Internet
deserves the highest level of First
Amendment protection.
Student speech has been afforded First
Amendment protection since the court’s
1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District. To justify
discipline for student speech, school
officials have the burden to demonstrate
that the student’s conduct would “materially
and substantially interfere with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in
the operation of the schools” or “impinge
upon the rights of other students.”
The “material and substantial disruption”
part of the test remains the standard
by which courts analyze most student
speech cases, including speech expressed
in cyberspace.
While cyberspace is off campus, the
initial inquiry must determine whether
the student’s conduct (posting or accessing
a website) occurred off campus or at
school. Discipline for conduct occurring
at school or through school equipment is
much less vulnerable to legal challenge,
particularly if the conduct violated the
school’s acceptable use policy related to
technology.
Most litigation is filed in reaction to
pending disciplinary sanctions and seeks a
court order prohibiting the school from
imposing the discipline. In First Amendment
cases, the key factor in determining
if an injunction should be issued is
whether the plaintiff or the school district
will likely succeed on the merits of the
case.
Most school district defendants
attempt to meet this burden by showing
that the expression was either a “true
threat” or caused—or was reasonably
expected to cause—a “material and substantial
disruption” to the school environment.
First Amendment protections do not
extend to certain types of speech, including
threats of violence. As the Supreme
Court instructed in a 2003 case, Virginia
v. Black, “true threats” are “those statements
where the speaker means to communicate
a serious expression of an
intent to commit an act of unlawful violence
to a particular individual or group
of individuals.”
To determine if a statement is a true
threat and outside First Amendment protection,
a court typically will examine the
following factors:
• What was the speaker’s intent?
• How did the intended victim react?
• Was the communication made
directly to the victim?
• Was the threat conditional?
• Did the victim have reason to believe
that violence would occur?
A true threat
A recent federal court decision from
New York illustrates how this analysis
works. In Wisniewski v. Board of Education
of Weedsport Central School District, an
eighth-grade student created and
attached to his computer’s instant messaging
feature an icon of a gun pointing
to a head, a bullet leaving the gun, and
blood splattering from the head. The
icon was captioned “Kill Mr. Vander-
Molen,” referring to the student’s English
teacher. The student attached the icon to
instant messages he forwarded from his
home computer to about 15 friends,
including classmates. His resulting suspension
led to a lawsuit claiming that the
discipline violated his First Amendment
rights.
The court disagreed, concluding that
the icon was a true threat and thus not
protected under the First Amendment:
“On their face, the words ‘Kill Mr. Vander-
Molen” and the accompanying graphic cannot
be viewed as anything but an unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate threat of
injury specific as to the person threatened,
such as conveys a gravity of purpose and
imminent prospect of execution.”
The court found surrounding circumstances
supported this conclusion,
including the effect of the icon on the
teacher and school officials, the student’s
awareness of the school’s position that a
threat was no joke, the absence of any
factor to the suggestion that the icon was
a joke, and the general increase in school
violence. The court concluded that “an
ordinary, reasonable recipient who is
familiar with the context of the icon
would interpret it as a serious threat of
injury.”
True, this case involved a teacher victim
rather than a bullied pupil. But a
growing body of case law involves expressive
cyberspace activity targeting school
officials as well as students. While the
facts and circumstances might differ, the
analyses courts use to determine if the
expressive activity was protected under
the First Amendment (and not a true
threat) are consistent.
If the student’s expressive activity is
not a true threat, school officials must
satisfy the Tinker requirement by producing
evidence to establish that the expression
created or threatened to create a
“material and substantial disruption” to
the school’s operation.
Courts do not accept an administrator’s
mere pronouncement of material
and substantial disruption based on an
“undifferentiated fear.” Rather, school
officials have the burden to establish an
actual or reasonable forecast of the disruption.
Disciplinary actions
So far, court decisions involving conduct
directed toward other students have
found disciplinary actions unconstitutional.
A review of these cases illustrates the
factors school officials need to be aware of
in these situations.
See Cyberspace on page 10
August 2006 / LEADERSHIP INSIDER 5

In June 2005, Massachusetts Attorney
General Tom Reilly launched a new
strategy to provide school districts
statewide with practical help in promoting
educational equity and making
them safe from harassment, bullying, and
hate crimes.
The Safe Schools Initiative (SSI), as the
new strategy is called, is a collaborative
effort among Reilly’s office and more than
60 experts and organizations representing
education, law enforcement, health, academia,
civil rights, victim assistance, and prevention.
Through the SSI, the attorney
general and his partners are developing
practical policies, training programs, and
“
strategies to help schools promote safety
and cultivate climates that welcome the
rich diversity of their communities.
The SSI responds to increasing concerns
about hate, harassment and bullying,
and school cultures that may discourage
students from standing up against fellow
students who victimize their classmates
and deter them from reporting
even the most serious forms of harassment
and bullying.
Crafting civil rights policy
As an important first step, the attorney
general’s staff drafted a sample civil rights
policy in consultation with the Massachusetts
Association of School Committees,
Massachusetts Association of School
Superintendents, and the state department
of education, along with other key education
stakeholders and civil rights experts.
The sample policy sets forth rights and
responsibilities of school community members
when harassment, discrimination,
retaliation, repeated bullying behavior, or
hate crimes occur. For example, it requires
6
Massachusetts: Collaborating for Safe Schools
A partnership initiative combats harassment,
bullying, and hate crimes in schools
By Richard W. Cole
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
mandatory reporting by staff members
whenever and however they become
aware of potential violations.
In addition, the sample policy provides
step-by-step guidance for investigating and
resolving complaints or reports of prohibited
conduct. It also establishes formal and
informal complaint resolution procedures
and provides disciplinary and corrective
action options for substantiated complaints.
Launching a pilot project
Part of the initiative is a pilot project to
develop and field test tools and strategies
for fostering safe schools and transforming
culture and climate. Three school districts
The sample policy provides step-by-step
guidance for investigating and resolving
complaints or reports of prohibited conduct.
”
were selected from 20 that applied to
receive intensive on-site technical assistance
and training for the 2005-06 and
2006-07 school years. Although distinct
geographically, demographically, and in
size, the three districts face school safety
and civil rights challenges similar to those
in many urban, suburban, and rural school
districts.
The attorney general’s civil rights and
child protection staff lead multidisciplinary
teams in each pilot district. The teams
include seven to nine experts in educational
equity, conflict resolution, juvenile justice,
civil rights, federal and state antiharassment
laws, child psychology, antibullying
strategies, community relations, victim
assistance, and prevention.
The first phase of the pilot project,
completed in May 2006, involved working
with district leadership teams of about 10
to 15 administrators and staff to identify
strengths, challenges, technical assistance,
and training needs. This needs assessment
phase included:
1. collecting and analyzing a broad
range of information about each pilot district’s
policies and programs and its schools,
students, staff, parents, and community;
2. evaluating the experiences, attitudes,
observations, and perceptions of each district’s
seventh and 10th graders and its
entire staff through surveys developed for
this project;
3. making school site observations;
4. holding focus group discussions
about school climate and culture with representative
groups of administrators,
teachers, staff, students, parents, and community
leaders; and
5. interviewing key district, school, and
community leaders.
Developing action plans
In the second phase of the pilot project,
begun in June, the expert teams and
districts are developing detailed, datadriven,
districtwide, and school-based
action plans. Each district is in the process
of adopting a civil rights policy and modifying,
as necessary, its reporting, complaint
response, record-keeping, and investigatory
protocols. The districts are designating
or expanding the role of a district equity
coordinator with broad authority over policy
compliance.
The districts are also adopting new incident-tracking
forms to help them identify
patterns and trends, repeat offenders, and
problem sites and to ensure consistently
applied discipline by, for example, identifying
racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in
discipline imposed under the policy.
The action plans may include conducting
a wide range of training for administrators,
staff, students, and parents; implementing
new policy management and
oversight systems; adopting new prevention-based
strategies and prevention programs
and curricula; and increasing community
resources and support to achieve
each district’s goals.
At the end of the 2006-07 school year,
the attorney general’s staff and the other
partners will work with each district to evaluate
the progress made in the pilot project
and will provide schools throughout the
state with strategies, protocols, and programs
that have been developed to combat
harassment, bullying, and hate crimes.
Richard W. Cole is senior counsel for civil rights
and civil liberties and assistant attorney general
in the Massachusetts Office of Attorney General.
He serves as co-chair of the statewide Safe
Schools Initiative.

Maryland: Confronting Classroom Bullies
Data collection is the first step in a statewide antibullying campaign
By Nancy S. Grasmick
Schools are among the safest places
for children to be, but work remains
to provide positive learning environments
that are free of bullying and
harassment. Nationally, almost 30 percent
of teens are thought to be affected—as a
bully, a target of bullying, or both. In a
recent survey of sixth to 10th-graders, 11
percent of students said they were victims
of bullying. These students can experience
anxiety, lowered self-esteem, and difficulty
concentrating in class.
Maryland policymakers and educators
are combating bullying through a new system
of data collection and reporting that
By Catherine Bradshaw,
Katrina Debnam, Lucia Martin,
and Rhonda Gill
Approximately 25 states have passed
legislation related to bullying or intimidation
at school. Like most states with
such legislation, Maryland’s policy
focuses on mandated reporting and surveillance
of bullying incidents. An important
step in responding to this requirement
is creating a systematic method for
efficiently collecting and reporting information
on school bullying.
Recognizing that the Internet provides
an enormous opportunity for collecting
information, Maryland’s Anne
Arundel County school system, working
with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health, has developed
a web-based system to monitor and
assess the prevalence of bullying in its
117 public schools.
The password-protected system collects
anonymous information, including
students’ and teachers’ reactions to witnessing
and experiencing bullying. A
critical feature of this system is the userfriendly
reporting mechanism, which
allows administrators and district staff to
view the survey results immediately and
generate a variety of preformatted
reports summarizing their school’s data.
The results are displayed in pie and bar
produces data school districts can use to
develop or refine antibullying programs.
Understanding the problem
Last year, the Maryland General
Assembly passed the Safe Schools Reporting
Act, which requires local school systems
to report to the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE) all
incidents of harassment or intimidation
against students. The act calls on the
department to compile the data and issue
an annual report.
The first such report, released in March
2006, contains findings that have helped
USING THE INTERNET TO MONITOR BULLYING AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
charts and are intended to inform local
decision making on school improvement
and safety planning.
First used districtwide in December
2005, the system collected anonymous
data on bullying and school climate
from 25,119 students, 2,263 staff members,
and 831 parents. An estimated 74
percent of the students in grades 4
through 10 completed the survey.
Two findings stand out in the preliminary
analysis of this data:
• 58 percent of elementary, 74 percent
of middle, and 79 percent of high
school students said they had witnessed
bullying within the past month.
• 32 percent of elementary, 31 percent
of middle, and 26 percent of high
school students reported experiencing
chronic bullying, defined as two or
more times within the past month.
These rates are similar to those
reported in a 2001 national study of
bullying.
As expected, the students who
reported experiencing bullying more
frequently also reported feeling less
safe at school and less connected to
their school. Furthermore, increased
involvement in bullying was associated
with attitudes supporting physical retaliation
and defensive fighting.
In addition to providing ongoing
technical assistance regarding the use
educators and policymakers better understand
the extent of bullying and harassment
in Maryland classrooms. Highlights
include these findings:
• A total of 1,054 incidents were
reported in schools between Sept. 1, 2005,
and Jan. 13, 2006. Most of the incidents
(60 percent) involved teasing, name calling,
and threatening remarks.
• The most frequent victims of bullying
incidents were 12-year-olds, according to
submitted reports. Most incidents were
perpetrated by 13-year-olds.
• The alleged motives for the incidents,
as reported by investigators, ranged
of the survey system, the district and
university partners have conducted a
series of workshops for administrators
and school staff on data-based decision
making. The response to the initiative
has been overwhelmingly positive.
When surveyed about the web-based
system, 75 percent of 223 administrators
and staff members said they
believed it would have a “moderate” to
“significant” impact on their schools’
efforts to prevent violence.
Focus groups with administrators
suggest that they greatly appreciate
having up-to-date information on bullying
they can use in planning for school
improvement. The district plans to continue
use of the Internet-based survey
system on an annual basis to meet
local evaluation needs and stay abreast
of legislative requirements.
Catherine Bradshaw is an assistant professor
at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health and associate director for the
Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of
Youth Violence, where Katrina Debnam is a
field coordinator.
Lucia Martin is a resource counselor in the
Office of Guidance and Counseling for the
Anne Arundel County Public Schools, and
Rhonda Gill is the district’s director of student
services.
August 2006 / LEADERSHIP INSIDER 7

from “just to be mean” (33.2 percent) and
“to impress others” (21.2 percent) to physical
appearance (9 percent). In more than
one in five incidents (21.2 percent), the
motivation was not known.
• Most of the incidents took place on
school property (84.7 percent). The next
most likely place was on school buses
(13.3 percent).
Of course, data alone can’t solve problems.
But these statistics help us understand
the problems of bullying and the
importance of reporting and investigating
incidents. Once staff members recognize
the extent of bullying in the schools, they
are more likely to report incidents and
make parents and students aware of the
resources available to them.
Addressing the problem
To help school staffs address bullying
problems, MSDE released a publication,
Report on Bullying and Harassment in
Maryland Public Schools, which details regulatory
changes and classroom activities
designed to decrease the incidence of bullying.
The report contains specific recom-
8
mendations for MSDE and Maryland’s 24
local school systems and provides a full
discussion of bullying: what it is; its effects
on society; and the national perspective,
including efforts in other states.
State-level recommendations include
helping districts develop instruments to
assess the extent of bullying and harassment
in local schools and providing a fulltime
professional to work with school systems
on improving school safety.
Recommendations for school systems
include providing ongoing training on bullying
and harassment for all staff members
and developing and disseminating written
district and school policies that prohibit
bullying and harassment.
Building on past efforts
Oklahoma: Bullying Prevention
Spurred by growing concern over
school safety, threats of violence, and
the negative effect of bullying on
school climate, Oklahoma enacted
the School Bullying Prevention Act in
2002. The act reflected the legislature’s
conviction that a comprehensive approach
by public schools to implement policies for
preventing harassment, intimidation, and
bullying was needed to create a safe environment
conducive to the learning
process.
The act requires each public school to
set up a Safe School Committee to facilitate
cooperation between families and
schools toward developing solutions. The
committees are to be made up of at least
six members, including equal numbers of
teachers, students, and parents of affected
students.
Each committee has three charges:
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
The publication and release of data are
just the most recent efforts in Maryland’s
targeted program to reduce bullying
through regulatory, curricular, and programmatic
means. Past efforts include:
• Regulatory efforts. In 1999, the
Maryland State Board of Education
approved regulations designed to ensure
that students have safe learning environ-
1. to study unsafe school conditions,
including student harassment, intimidation,
and bullying;
2. to make recommendations to the
principal; and
3. to study and recommend ways to
encourage the involvement of the community
and students and the use of problem-solving
teams that include counselors
or school psychologists.
A common goal
The Oklahoma Bullying Prevention
Initiative (OBPI) is a project of the
Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law &
Justice and is funded by a grant from the
Oklahoma State Department of Health.
Governed by a coalition of nonprofit
organizations that serve a statewide constituency,
the OBPI includes a general
membership base of agencies, organiza-
ments at school. A school safety regulation,
approved in 2003, says that students
should be free from harassment.
• Curricular efforts. Maryland’s voluntary
health curriculum addresses harassment
and assault prevention. The high
school curriculum is even more specific
about bullying behavior and its prevention.
• Programmatic efforts. MSDE and
local systems have promoted a variety of
programs designed to improve school safety
and decrease bullying and harassment,
including one called Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Support.
States and school systems have an obligation
to set high expectations for student
performance. For students to meet those
expectations, they must have access to a
learning environment that is safe, free
from harassment and bullying, and conductive
to learning. Maryland is proud to
be on the cutting edge of data collection
and reporting that will lead to improved
environments—and improved learning—
for all children.
Nancy Grasmick is Maryland State Superintendent
of Schools.
Through shared goals and combined effort, communities can create safer schools
By Tina Izadi
tions, and others from across the state
that share the common goal of reducing
bullying and ensuring the safety of all
children.
The purpose of the initiative is to
coordinate statewide bullying prevention
efforts, to define policy, to educate communities,
to provide resources and support
to parents and educators, and to
develop systemwide solutions to bullying
and issues that stem from bullying. Over
time, OBPI will develop a comprehensive
statewide bullying prevention plan that is
based on community input and assessment
of need and involves monitoring,
review, and evaluation. This plan will be
distributed to state-based and national
entities.
Three workgroups will assist in the furtherance
of the initiative’s goals, policy
and legislation, training, and public educa-

tion. The workgroups are designed to capitalize
on the strengths of each coalition
member. Each of these groups makes recommendations
to the OBPI coalition
about specific courses of action to be
taken with regard to bullying prevention.
The cooperation and collaboration of
diverse groups, organizations, and individuals
increases OBPI’s opportunities to
streamline efforts, educate a wider audience,
and develop a more comprehensive
bullying prevention plan. Among the
coalition partners are the Oklahoma Parents
Center, the Oklahoma Chiefs of
Police Association, the Oklahoma Disability
Law Center, and the Oklahoma
State Department of Education. OBPI
continues to identify potential partners
and ways to involve communities in bullying
prevention.
Raising awareness
Public awareness and education are
critical components in bullying prevention.
Until people understand what bullying
is and can identify the warning signs,
children’s bullying will continue to be
undetected by adults. Once understanding
is achieved, however, standards can be
adopted to discourage bullying by, for
example, persuading bystanders not to
accept such behavior.
OBPI provides resources for schools,
parents, and safe school committees and
hopes to serve as a clearinghouse of available
resources, such as promoting the
SAFE-CALL hotline provided by the
Oklahoma State Department of Education.
Action kits and tool kits for parents,
youths, and adults who work with youths
are being developed. OBPI is also investigating
the effectiveness of safe school
committees in different schools and creating
solutions and resources to improve
committee effectiveness.
Bullying prevention is possible. It
requires a commitment from all of us to
create safe environments where children
are protected and bullying is not tolerated.
Through a combined effort of community
leaders, organizations, educators, parents,
and others, efforts to combat bullying
through recognition and response will
lead to safer schools, less crime, and less
violence.
Tina Izadi serves on the board of directors for
the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and
Justice and is the project coordinator for the
Oklahoma Bullying Prevention Initiative. She
also serves as a staff attorney for the ACLU of
Oklahoma.
To List or Not to List?
How specific should an antiharassment policy be?
One community’s search for common ground
By Wayne Jacobsen
done tonight when 90
percent of us agree on a
policy to recommend to the
“We’re
school board.”
That’s always my “opening line in sensitive
policy negotiations. I usually get a
polite laugh, and then it sinks in: He’s
serious.
This time I was with 22 people who
had gathered in the late May heat of a
central Iowa school board room. For
weeks a proposed antiharassment policy
had been making its way through the
Marshalltown school board’s approval
process, and the town was deeply polarized.
For the first time the term “sexual
orientation” was to be included in the list
of attributes for which harassment would
not be tolerated.
As you might imagine, not everyone
was thrilled with the proposal.
Debating the issue
Over weeks of heated debate, the controversy
seemed to settle on one issue:
Would listing specific groups protected by
the policy do more harm than good? No
one disagreed with the district’s need for a
clear policy to provide a harassment-free
environment for all staff and students, but
some hoped a simple statement alone
would be sufficient. They wanted all to
mean all, avoiding the need to enumerate
targeted groups.
Certainly some people were uncomfortable
specifying sexual orientation in the
policy. They were concerned it would
mandate the promotion of gay pride activities,
which would be an affront to their
own beliefs. But many genuinely felt that
such lists only intensify the divisions in
the culture, rather than heal them.
On the other hand, those who proposed
the new policy were concerned that
if specific forms of harassment were not
listed, the policy would too easily be
ignored. They had been frustrated by past
attempts to get the school staff to take
seriously the amount of teasing, namecalling,
and bullying in the district based
on real or perceived sexual orientation.
To list or not to list? That was the
question dividing the community. It is the
focus of a debate going on in districts
across the country.
False dichotomies
When I was first contacted about helping
the district, I was asked whether I recommended
listing or not listing targeted
forms of harassment in such policies.
“Neither,” I answered. “Viewing this
controversy in such narrow terms limits
the possible solutions that could help this
community get through this controversy.”
That’s why I don’t like being pushed
into this kind of false dichotomy. There is
no one-size-fits-all answer in situations
like this. In truth, such battles often serve
to mask the real issue—namely, whether
we can build enough mutual respect to
work through difficult issues without one
side feeling its rights are being co-opted by
the other.
I’ve worked with many communities on
similar issues, and the final language is
never the same from one to the next.
Instead of imposing solutions, I prefer to
help a conflicted group of people work
together to craft a policy that is fair to
them. The process is actually more important
than the product.
In Marshalltown, the school board
could have resolved the issue itself with a
4-3 vote. Instead, the board sought help
and took my recommendation to appoint
an advisory committee representing all the
voices in this debate. The committee’s
charge: to have a conversation about their
differences and recommend a policy to the
board.
After all, what is the value of passing an
antiharassment policy by a narrow margin if
it only serves to increase the polarization in
the community? Such policies are often
overturned after the next election, when
those who feel disenfranchised work harder
to elect single-issue candidates who can
change or cancel the policy.
Defining the common ground
I spent two evenings with the committee,
helping the members hammer out an
agreement that would not divide their
community. In my first couple of hours, I
knew the board had appointed the right
August 2006 / LEADERSHIP INSIDER 9

people. They represented a broad spectrum
of passionate views, and their disagreements
were evident. The two sides
were polarized, each seeking to convince
the other that its view was the only reasonable
alternative.
“I was very uncomfortable about coming
into this process of ‘listening’ to each
other,” recalls committee member Paul
Daniel, a child psychologist. “As the
names were listed in our local newspaper,
it was evident there was an ‘us versus
them’ mentality in the choosing of the
names.”
Kathy Black, a district employee and a
member of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s
Team Diversity, adds, “The thought
of coming to an acceptable consensus with
so many diverse opinions in such a short
time seemed overwhelming.”
At this point, committee members had
no idea where to find their common
ground. They had framed the debate in
either/or terms, and the only possible
result was for half the room to win and
half to lose. But the art finding common
ground begins by reframing the argument
so people don’t just see what they want for
their own children but think honestly
about what is fair for all children in the
district.
So, after we aired the issue and everyone’s
positions, I gave the committee
some brief training on the First Amendment
and how it can help us cultivate the
common ground on issues regarding our
political and religious differences. Public
schools are a treasure worth sharing, even
with people who disagree with us. But if
we’re going to share the forum, we cannot
insist that public education choose sides
on issues when claims of conscience are at
stake.
Instead, we must expect the schools to
be fair and honest brokers of a common
good in which all constituencies are
treated fairly. You cannot ask people to
participate in a public school system they
feel is biased against them. Failing to
address these perceptions seriously and
respectfully only exacerbates the animosity
and resentment that already divides
our culture.
In defining a common good that transcends
their differences, people begin to
discover that they can best protect their
own First Amendment rights by protecting
those same rights for others with whom
they disagree. Under our First Amendment,
a school is both safe and free when
all members of the school and community
commit to addressing their differences
10
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
with civility and respect. A safe school is
free of bullying and harassment, and a free
school is safe for student speech about
issues that divide us.
Working for a common good
The committee’s task was not to build
a coalition of the like-minded at someone
else’s expense, but to be fair to the differences
in the room. And the members rose
to this challenge. Once they saw that people
with whom they disagreed wanted to
make room for them in this policy, we
were headed downhill.
We worked through the proposed policy
paragraph by paragraph, noting where
there were disagreements and working
toward broad consensus. By adding language
that recognized their differences,
affirmed their First Amendment rights,
and reflected their newfound mutual
respect, committee members crafted an
antiharassment policy even stronger than
the one that had divided them.
So, did they list or not list? Actually,
both. In the end, the Marshalltown committee
removed the enumerated list from
the paragraph that defined harassment,
emphasizing the word “all.” But the policy
included the list of federally protected
groups and those specifically targeted in
the district, for which staff and students
would receive future training. And yes,
“sexual orientation” was in the list. What’s
more important, the entire committee
affirmed that harassment based on sexual
CYBERSPACE
Continued from page 5
In a 2000 case from Washington,
Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415, a
student’s webpage contained “mock obituaries”
of some students and a poll soliciting
votes to decide who would “die”
next—meaning who should be the next
subject of a mock obituary. The webpage
also commented about school administration
and faculty, but it included a disclaimer
that the webpage was only for
entertainment purposes. After a TV
news story characterized the webpage as
a “hit list,” the student was placed on
“emergency expulsion” (modified to a
five-day suspension) for intimidation,
harassment, and disruption of the educational
process.
Acknowledging the difficulties facing
administrators in the post-Columbine
environment, the court nonetheless
orientation was a problem the district
could no longer ignore.
The important question is never
whether we should list or not list, but why
we do it, how we do it, and where we do
it. The goal is not to exacerbate the conflict
but to promote a community that is
more committed to the common good.
In negotiations like this, I always shoot
for a 90 percent vote, but in truth, I’m
willing to accept anything above 80 percent.
In the end, this committee recommended
its new antiharassment policy to
the school board by a vote of 22-0.
“Coming out of the process,” said
Black, “I felt that the document was as
near as any of us could come to our individual
wishes, without intruding on the
beliefs or escalating the fears of others.”
In fact, every person in that room was
convinced that the policy the committee
ended up with was a better policy than
the one originally proposed. And all of
them left the room with a better way to
handle their differences and an abiding
mutual respect that will serve them well in
days to come.
In doing so, the Marshalltown community
made its public schools a bit more
public and a whole lot safer for all.
Wayne Jacobsen is president of BridgeBuilders,
a nonprofit organization that specializes in helping
educators, business people, and others
work toward common ground on polarizing
issues.
blocked the discipline, which it found
unconstitutional because no evidence was
presented that the website really threatened
anyone or materially and substantially
disrupted school operations.
In Mahaffey v. Waterford School District,
a 2002 case from Michigan, a high school
student was suspended for his “Satan’s
web page,” which contained various lists,
including one titled “People I Wish
Would Die.” The website also advocated
rape, murder, drug use, membership in
the Ku Klux Klan, and wreaking general
havoc.
The site’s “mission” directed readers to
“stab someone for no reason and set them
on fire and throw them off a cliff.”
Although the court agreed that the website
was repugnant, it found the speech
was protected by the First Amendment
because it was not a true threat. Because
no evidence was presented that the website
caused a disruption to school, the

court found the student’s suspension
unconstitutional.
That same year, another federal court
in Ohio ruled in Coy v. Board of Education
of North Canton City Schools, on a
middle school student who created a
website with insulting comments about
other students described as “losers.” It
was not clear whether the student’s
resulting suspension was based on his
misuse of a school computer or if it
derived from the content of his website.
The court ruled that it would be unconstitutional
to discipline the student just
because school officials did not like the
website content.
Off-campus actions
Then in 2003 a U.S. district court in
Pennsylvania considered Flaherty v. Keystone
Oaks School District, in which a
school disciplined a student who posted
messages described as “trash talking”
about an upcoming volleyball match on
an Internet website message board. The
court found the discipline unconstitutional
because the student’s actions
occurred off campus and created no
material or substantial disruption of the
school and did not interfere with the
educational process or the rights of other
students.
The cases involving off-campus expressive
activity directed at school officials, as
opposed to other students, generally ask
the same two questions:
1. whether the expression is a true
threat and therefore not protected by the
First Amendment; and
2. whether the expression caused a
material and substantial disruption to
school operations or caused school officials
to believe reasonably that it would do
so.
In Buessink v. Woodland R-IV School
District, a federal court in Missouri in 1998
blocked a student’s 10-day suspension for
his vulgar website. Finding no material
and substantial disruption, the court
noted that “disliking or being upset by the
content of a student’s speech is not an
acceptable justification for limiting student
speech.”
Substantial disruption
In the 2000 case of Beidler v. North
Thurston School District No. 3, a Washington
high school student was placed on
emergency suspension and recommended
for expulsion for his “appalling and inappropriate”
website, which depicted the
assistant principal in unflattering roles,
including a Viagra commercial, a cartoon
character engaged in sex, and a partici-
pant in a Nazi book-burning. Here again,
the state court ruled that the discipline
was unconstitutional because there was no
evidence of a material and substantial disruption
to school.
In a 2001 Pennsylvania case, Killion v.
Franklin Regional School District, a high
school student created and e-mailed his
friends a derogatory “Top Ten” list about
the school athletic director and administration.
The federal court found that the student’s
10-day suspension was unconstitutional
because—you guessed it—the
school had produced no evidence of a
material and substantial disruption to
the school. The court commented, “We
cannot accept, without more, that the
childish and boorish antics of a minor
could impair the administrator’s abilities
to discipline students and maintain
control.”
In the following year, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court issued J.S. v. Bethlehem
Area School District, which concerned a
middle school student’s website titled
“Teacher Sux” featuring derogatory comments
and images about teachers and the
principal. One photo of a teacher’s face,
morphed into Adolf Hitler, was captioned,
“Why Should [the teacher] Die?” An animated
picture displayed the teacher’s head
cut off with blood dripping down the
neck.
Although the court found that the
statements were not a “true threat,” in
this case school officials were able to
establish that the website interfered with
the educational process. After viewing the
website, the teacher had suffered from
anxiety, weight loss, and stress and had to
take a medical leave of absence that prevented
her from completing the school
year.
Finally, in another case from Pennsyl-
vania this year, Layshock v. Hermitage
School District, a high school student
challenged his 10-day suspension for
posting a spoof profile of his principal on
MySpace.com (www.myspace.com), a
popular Internet site where users can
share photos, journals, personal interests,
and the like with other users. Here
again, school officials presented evidence
that the student’s actions materially and
substantially disrupted school operations
and interfered with the rights of others,
and the U.S. district court upheld the
discipline.
Plenty of options
Many of these court decisions, no
doubt, may be frustrating to school officials,
who are left wondering what really
can be done to address cyber-bullying of
students and school personnel.
The answer: Plenty. In these cases,
school officials generally reacted to the
situation by imposing discipline that had
constitutional implications, but there are
many other ways to address this conduct.
They can confront the student, involve
the student’s parents, notify the Internet
service provider, contact law enforcement,
and refer the incident for a threat
assessment.
Still, these decisions make clear that
school officials who want to address
online harassment or bullying through
disciplinary action should carefully consider,
when crafting and implementing
policies, whether the student’s conduct
really constitutes a “true threat” or, if not,
whether they are prepared to show evidence
of the material and substantial disruption
to the school environment the
conduct caused.
Lisa L. Swem is an attorney with the Thrun Law
Firm in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
MORE PRACTICAL TIPS ON DEALING WITH CYBER-BULLYING
• Make sure your school district’s
computer use policy includes cyberbullying
in the list of unacceptable
uses of district equipment.
• If your district imposes disciplinary
consequences for off-campus
behavior, notify students and parents of
this fact in your student code of conduct
and other communications.
• Consider training administrators
on these issues, including the fact that
courts generally are not impressed by
the mere fact that off-campus website
expression might be offensive or controversial.
• Consult your school attorney on
issues of discipline for off-campus conduct,
especially where there might be
free speech issues.
• Consider educational options,
such as teaching students about the
responsibilities that come with the
power of the Internet and teaching
parents about ways to make sure they
know what their children are doing
online.
August 2006 / LEADERSHIP INSIDER 11

12
BULLYING
Continued from page 1
erance approach and blurring the line
between bullying and more serious kinds
of harassment.
The examples of efforts from around
the country we feature do tend to call for
clear definitions of harassment and bullying
and for a comprehensive, instead of a
purely disciplinary, approach. On page 8
Tina Izadi, project coordinator for the
Oklahoma Bullying Prevention Initiative
describes her state’s requirement that
every public school approach the issue
locally through a safe school committee.
Maryland State Superintendent of
Schools Nancy Grasmick outlines on page
7 that state’s efforts, which include a
strong emphasis on data collection. On
the same page, a team from Maryland’s
Anne Arundel County Public Schools and
ONLINE RESOURCES
The documents identified by the contributors
to this issue of Leadership
Insider and related resources are available
at the following links. These links
also have been collected online for
NSBA National Affiliate members on
the Leadership Insider page of the
National Affiliate website
www.nsba.org/na.
Hutton intro.
CUBE Where We Learn school climate
report:
www.nsba.org/site/docs/38100/3808
1.pdf
Izadi on Oklahoma
Text of School Bullying Prevention Act:
www.bullypolice.org/ok_law.html
2004 Oklahoma State Department of
Health report on bullying:
www.health.state.ok.us/program/
injury/RPE/bullyingmanual.pdf”
Croyle overview
EEOC guidelines and resources on sexual
harassment:
www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_
harassment.html
Swem on cyber-bullying
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet
Use
LEADERSHIP INSIDER / August 2006
the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for
the Prevention of Youth Violence describe
their innovative use of the Internet to get
a handle on the problem.
The Massachusetts Safe Schools Initiative,
described on page 6 by Assistant
Attorney General Richard W. Cole, avoids
state mandates altogether. Rather, the
attorney general’s office provides information
and sample guidance for local school
districts to consider and has launched a
pilot program in which districts can apply
to participate.
One thorny controversy for school
boards is how to address harassment and
bullying based on sexual orientation, real
or perceived. This variety, some observers
say—and lawsuits attest—is pervasive in
schools and can be particularly vicious.
But are deliberately confrontational
statements of religious objections to
homosexuality a form of harassment or
www.cyberbullying.com
Stein on zero tolerance
Interview with Nan Stein on antibullying:
www.dodea.edu/dodsafeschools/
members/seminar/Anti-bullying/featured
topic.html
Cole on Massachusetts
Massachusetts Safe Schools Initiative:
www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid
=2082
Sample Civil Rights policy developed
with Massachusetts Association of
School Committees:
www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid
=2087
Information on Safe Schools Initiative
pilot project:
www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid
=2147
Grasmick on Maryland
2006 Safe Schools Reporting Act
report:
www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/
rdonlyres/0700B064-C2B3-41FC-A6CF
-D3DAE4969707/9382/BullyingReportfor
GA200631106.doc
Report on Bullying and Harassment in
Maryland Public Schools:
www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/
rdonlyres/0700B064-C2B3-41FC-A6CF
constitutionally protected speech? And
should the district’s antiharassment policy
specify sexual orientation as a protected
category like race or religion? Wayne
Jacobsen of BridgeBuilders recounts on
page 9 how the school board in Marshalltown,
Iowa, put in place a process that,
with his help, succeeded in reaching common
ground on this kind of divisive issue.
Jacobsen’s success story highlights an
important insight about effective education
policy, albeit one that seems not to be
in vogue lately among many policymakers.
Even when it comes to meeting challenges
as legally intensive as harassment and bullying,
good lawyering and legal oversight
are, at best, only part of the equation.
Real success requires decision making,
leadership, and the hard work of engagement
at the local level.
Thomas Hutton is an NSBA staff attorney.
-D3DAE4969707/8600/BHSummary.pdf
Bradshaw et al. on Anne
Arundel County
Anne Arundel County Public Schools
website:
www.aacps.org/
Anne Arundel County announcement to
parents of bullying survey:
www.aacps.org/html/press/bully
survey.asp
Anne Arundel County student safety
hotline information:
www.aacps.org/html/press/save.asp
Anne Arundel County harassment or
intimidation (bullying) reporting form:
www.aacps.org/html/press/bully.asp
Jacobsen on common ground
Marshalltown Community School District
website:
www.marshalltown.k12.ia.us/board/
index.html
Marshalltown advisory committee’s proposed
policy:
www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?cid=185
9&did=38747
A consensus First Amendment framework
facilitated in part by Jacobsen for
handling public school controversies
over sexual orientation:
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/
pdf/sexual.orientation.guidelines.pdf